SPEECH 


OF  THE 


Off.  WILLIAM  O.  MAYNARD, 


Kn  tire  Senate  of  NeUi  ¥oett. 


LIVERED  IN  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE,  ON  THE  BILL  INTRODUCED  BY  MR.  BRONSON, 
CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  FINANCE,  FOR  IMPOSING  A DIRECT  TAX; 

AND  UPON  THE  SUBSTITUTE  OFFERED  BY  MR.  MAYNARD. 


UTICA: 

WILLIAM  WILLIAMS,  60  GENESEE  STREET. 
1832. 


33C.7.1 

j\\  4 


MR.  MAYNARD’S  SPEECH, 

AGAINST  A DIRECT  TAX. 


Mr.  Maynard  said:  It  is  true,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  we  have  arrived  at  a crisis  that  re- 
quires the  establishment  of  some  principles 
in  reference  to  the  revenues  of  this  state. 
But  how  different  is  our  situation,  both  in  this 
state  and  nation,  from  the  condition  of  the 
people  of  other  countries.  While  the  legis- 
lators of  other  nations  are  tasking  their  facul- 
ties to  raise  the  supplies  necessary  for  the 
support  of  their  respective  governments,  and 
the  people  from  whom  those  supplies  are  to 
be  raised,  are  staggering  under  the  burdens 
they  are  already  doomed  to  bear — we  in  this 
nation  and  this  state,  are  perplexed  to  devise 
the  proper  measures  to  prevent  the  dangerous 
accumulation  of  funds  from  existing  sources 
of  revenue. 

To  point  out  that  dangerous  accumulation  — 
to  warn  us  against  it — and  to  admonish  us  to 
take  measures  for  its  prevention— is  the  ob- 
ject of  far  the  most  interesting  part  of  the  re- 
port accompanying  the  bill  on  your  table  for 
the  imposition  of  a tax,  and  forms  also  the 
burden  of  (in  my  judgment)  far  the  ablest 
part  of  the  speech  of  my  honorable  colleague, 
(Mr.  Bronson,)  in  support  of  that  bill. 

The  proposition  is  to  tax  the  people  : the 
argument  is,  that  you  are  in  danger  of  an  ex- 
cess of  funds,  from  existing  sources  of  revenue, 
and  must  labor  to  prevent  it.  The  bill  and 
the  argument,  taken  together,  amount  pre- 
cisely to  these  two  simple  propositions  : We 
have  too  little  revenue,  and  must  impose  a 
tax — we  have  too  much  revenue  from  exist- 
ing sources,  and  must  adopt  measures  to  pre- 
vent a dangerous  accumulation  of  funds  there- 
from. To  a plain  man,  there  appears  some- 
thing paradoxical  in  these  propositions.  The 
people,  who  are  to  pay  the  tax,  will  demand 
some  explanation.  They  will  desire  to  know 
how  it  can  be  necessary  to  impose  a tax, 
when  you  are  alarmed  at  the  certain  prospect 
of  having  at  your  disposal  a vast  accumula- 
tion of  money  which  you  will  not  need — for 
which  you  have  no  appropriation  or  contem- 
plated use — but  which  maybe  employed  for 
the  purposes  of  corruption.  If  you  can  sat- 
isfy them  that  the  imposition  of  a : ax  is  ne- 
cessary, they  will  bear  it  with  patience.  It 


is  their  duty  to  do  so ; and,  if  their  duty  be 
made  clear,  they  are  too  patriotic  to  fail  in 
its  performance.  But  that  satisfaction  they 
will  demand.  They  will  require  you  to  ex- 
plain to  them  why  a tax  is  necessary,  and 
how  it  happens  that  when  you  have  such  large 
existing  revenues,  and  such  an  amount  of  ac- 
cumulated funds  in  prospect,  beyond  all  the 
purposes  for  which  those  revenues  were  cre- 
ated, you  cannot  so  manage  your  finances  as 
to  avoid  taxation.  You  must  make  all  this 
plain,  or  must  expect  to  meet  public  disap- 
probation. 

But  my  colleague  thinks  public  sentiment 
is  in  favor  of  the  bill,  and  that  the  tax  he  pro- 
poses would  be  approved.  Far  different  is 
the  opinion  which  1 entertain.  Our  country- 
men are  averse  to  taxation,  and  they  will  be 
slow  to  believe  the  allegation  of  its  necessity* 
They  have  been  taught  to  dread  taxation. 
They  have  been  told  that  taxation  is  the  pro- 
cess by  which  despots  practice  oppression. 
That  the  lightness  of  its  burdens  is  one  of 
the  evidences  and  essential  characteristics  of 
a good  government.  The  people,  too,  have 
been  instructed  that  taxation  was  unnecessary. 
They  have  been  told  so  in  former  executive 
messages,  and  legislative  documents.  The 
present  executive  has,  it  is  true,  held  a dif- 
ferent language.  He  has  repeatedly  recom- 
mended and  urged  taxation.  But  from  the 
language  and  conduct  of  his  predecessors, 
and  from  legislative  action  on  this  subject, 
the  people  had  a right  to  infer  that  they 
should  be  free  from  the  imposition  of  such 
burdens.  Charges  have  also  been  made 
against  the  government  of  excessive  prodiga- 
lity in  expenditure.  A distrust  of  the  pru- 
dence,and  thejudgment  of  the  legislature,  has 
been  engendered.  Previous  to  the  year  1830, 

I heard  but  little  on  that  subject.  Before 
that  time,  I recollect  no  very  grave  charge  ; 
but  in  that  year,  charges  of  the  gravest  im- 
port— denunciations  of  the  most  sweeping 
character — were  made  in  the  most  imposing 
form.  They  were  presented  to  the  legisla- 
ture,in  an  important  report  from  a high  public 
officer.  I will  give  you  them  in  his  own  words- ' 

“ Where  is  the  immense  inheritance  of 


4 


public  property  left  us  by  our  ancestors  ? 
Wasted — dissipated — and  nearly  gone ; a 
patrimony,  which,  if  it  had  been  managed 
with  the  prudence  and  economy  which  indi- 
viduals ordinarily  exercise  in  their  own  af- 
fairs, would  have  been  sufficient  to  have  sup- 
orted  two  such  governments  as  ours, 
hould  an  individual  squander  his  own  goods 
in  the  manner  that  the  funds  of  this  state  have 
been  wasted,  by  every  legislature  previous 
to  the  present,  such  thoughtless  profusion 
would  afford  ample  cause  of  issuing  a com- 
mission of  lunacy  against  him. 

“ The  plunder  of  the  public  property  con- 
stantly invites  new  aggressions  ; and  the  easy 
virtue  of  legislation  in  pecuniary  affairs,  is 
strongly  illustrated  by  the  hordes  of  seducers 
that  are  constantly  swarming  around  its 
halls.” 

The  author  of  the  report  adds  : “ If  a ca- 
tholicon,  which  would  have  effectually  cured 
legislative  prodigality,  could  have  been  pur- 
chased twenty  years  ago,  at  the  expense  of 
five  millions  of  dollars,  the  bargain  would 
have  been  immensely  beneficial  to  the  peo- 
ple of  this  state.”  [Col.  Young’s  Report  on 
the  Chemung  canal.] 

Such  is  the  character  which  a public  offi- 
cer gives  of  his  government.  Is  it  true  ? I 
will  not  affirm  its  truth.  That  officer  unques- 
tionably believed  it  to  be  true.  It  must  be 
uso.  His  report  was  a solemn  official  act.  It 
was  performed  under  all  the  responsibility 
of  his  high  station — under,  too,  the  solemn 
sanction  of  his  official  oath.  During  the  whole 
of  the  twenty  years  of  wasteful  prodigality, 
of  which  he  speaks,  he  was  himself  connect- 
ed with  the  government — an  important  mem- 
ber of  both  branches  of  the  legislature  ; he 
must  have  been  familiar  with  the  “ hordes  of 
seducers,”  and  have  made  his  declarations 
from  knowledge  and  experience.  That  is 
his  testimony,  with  perfect  means  of  know- 
ledge ; he  gives  his  solemn  asseveration  that 
the  description  he  has  given  of  the  conduct 
of  the  government  is  true.  If  true,  what  a 
picture  of  wastefulness  does  it  present?  What 
confidence  can  the  people  have  in  their  go- 
vernment ? An  inheritance  sufficient  for  the 
support  of  two  such  governments,  “wasted — 
dissipated — nearly  gone.”  The  author  of 
that  report  has  given  a rule  by  which  you 
can  estimate  the  extent  of  the  prodigality  of 
your  government. 

“ If,”  he  says,  “ a catholicon,  which  would 
have  effectually  cured  legislative  prodigality 
could  have  been  purchased  twenty  years  ago, 
at  the  expense  of  five  millions  of  dollars,  the 
bargain  would  have  been  immensely  benefi- 
cial.” Five  millions  at  five  per  cent.,  for 
twenty  years,  and  without  the  process  of 
compounding,  for  which  that  officer  is  distin- 


guished, would  amount  to  ten  millions.  That 
sum  then  was  squandered  by  the  government 
in  twenty  years.  More  than  that  indeed,  for 
the  assertion  is,  that  the  purchase  of  the 
“ catholicon,”  at  that  price,  would  have  been 
a bargain  “ immensely  beneficial.” 

Within  that  period,  then,  your  government, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  that  distinguish- 
ed functionary,  “ wasted,”  “ dissipated,” 
more  than  ten  millions  of  dollars — more  than 
half  a million  a year.  It  is  true,  that  sum  ex- 
ceeds the  whole  amount,  of  expenditure  for 
the  purposes  of  government,  but  do  not  let 
that  trifling  circumstance  diminish  your  con- 
fidence in  the  truth  of  the  allegation.  Your 
officer,  who  made  the  charge  and  the  asser- 
tion, had  abundant  means  of  accurate  know- 
ledge. That  document  was  printed,  by  le- 
gislative authority.  It  was  published  also  in 
the  state  paper,  and  ushered  to  the  world 
with  all  the  imposing  recommendations  of 
such  high  official  sanctions.  It  has  been  pub- 
lished also  in  the  more  enduring  form  of  a 
pamphlet,  and  we  have  been  favored  with 
annual  distributions.  It  has  been  industri- 
ously and  widely  circulated.  Will  you  say 
it  has  not  gained  belief  in  its  statements  of 
facts  ? What ! a document  emanating  from 
a source  so  highly  responsible — published  by 
authority — and  thereby  recommended  to  the 
world  ? The  people  cannot  be  so  incredulous. 
To  disbelieve  such  a witness,  so  high  in  pub- 
lic employment  and  consideration,  when,  too, 
his  testimony  is  presented  to  them  in  a man- 
ner so  calculated  to  inspire  confidence,  would 
imply  strange  incredulity.  If  they  do  believe 
it,  what  must  they  think  of  their  government  ? 
What  confidence  can  they  have  in  the  pru- 
dence, firmness,  or  fidelity  of  their  legisla- 
tors ? The  same  report  from  which  these 
extracts  are  taken,  portrays  the  horrors  of 
taxation.  And  the  author  expresses  the  opi- 
nion, that  “ every  dollar  drawn  from  the  peo- 
ple by  taxation,  probably  costs  the  commu- 
nity the  value  of  two.”  If  this  report  has  had 
the  contemplated  effect,  and  gained  belief 
with  the  community,  it  must  have  produced 
a strong  and  pervading  sentiment  against  tax- 
ation. It  must  have  convinced  the  people 
that  taxation  is  an  enormous  evil,  to  be 
dreaded,  deplored,  and  avoided.  It  is  in 
vain  that  your  governor  has  recommended 
taxation,  and  your  comptroller  has  sustained 
and  enforced  his  recommendations.  Here 
the  people  see  that  a public  officer,  older 
than  either  of  them-— longer  and  more  closely 
connected  with  the  legislature — proclaims 
the  prodigality  and  wastefulness  of  the  go- 
vernment, and  warns  the  people  against  the 
evils  and  oppressions  of  taxation.  How  then 
can  my  colleague  imagine  ;that  public  senti- 
ment will  sustain  him  in  the  imposition  of  his 


contemplated  tax?  Public  sentiment  bas 
been  poisoned  on  the  subject  of  taxation;  and 
believing  that,  1 will  vote  for  no  tax,  so  long 
as  I can  find  means  to  support  the  govern- 
ment without. 

But  I have  other  reasons  against  taxation, 
which  would  exist  at  all  times,  unless  the  ne- 
cessity for  it  was  palpable  : it  is  an  expen- 
sive mode  of  raising  money.  1 will  not  say, 
with  the  author  of  the  report  referred  to, 
that  “ for  every  dollar  the  government  re- 
ceives by  taxation,  the  community  probably 
pays  the  value  of  two” — but  a tax  certainly 
does  cost  the  community  much  more  than 
the  government  receives.  W e are  to  estimate 
not  only  the  cost  of  assessment  and  collection, 
but  the  sacrifices  to  which  individuals  in  mo- 
derate circumstances  are  subjected  to  pro- 
cure the  money — the  loss  of  time — and  loss 
on  property  sold  for  less  than  its  value.  Also 
we  should  take  into  the  account,  the  waste 
produced  by  forced  sales  by  collectors — and 
finally  the  sales  of  lands  for  taxes  at  the  ca- 
pitol.  It  is  impossible  to  determine  exactly 
the  cost  of  raising  money  by  taxation,  but 
probably  it  would  be  safe  to  estimate  it  at 
twenty  per  cent.  Loans  can  be  made  for 
four  per  cent.  I do  not  propose  borrowing, 
because  that  is  unnecessary  ; but  the  neces- 
sity for  taxation  must  be  great,  indeed,  to 
justify  a resort  to  that  mode  of  raising  money, 
at  an  expense  five  times  greater  than  would 
be  incurred  by  loans. 

It  is  also  an  unequal  tax.  Individuals  of 
equal  amounts  of  property,  are  not  equally 
able  to  pay  taxes.  The  property  of  one  may 
be  productive — of  another  not.  That  of  one 
may  be  unincumbered — of  another,  covered 
with  judgments  and  mortgages.  No  tax  can 
be  equal  in  its  pressure  upon  all  classes  ; but 
a direct  tax  falls  with  undue  severity  upon 
the  poor,  and  middling,  and  laboring  classes. 

But  my  principal  objection  to  a direct  tax, 
is,  that  it  is  unnecessary. 

Before  I proceed  to  show  that,  I will  exa- 
mine some  of  the  doctrines  of  the  report,  and 
arguments  of  my  colleague. 

One  argument  in  favor  of  the  taxation  is, 
that  we  ought  to  resort  to  that  mode  to  raise 
money  for  th.e  support  of  the  government, 
in  order  to  preserve  the  general  fund.  Ac- 
cording to  the  report,  and  the  fact,  the  invest- 
ed, productive  portion  of  the  general  fund 
yields  an  interest  of  six  per  cent.  As  a fi- 
nancial operation  merely,  the  proposition 
amounts  then  precisely  to  this,  that  we  should 
raise  money  at  20  per  cent,  cost  to  preserve 
property  worth  six  per  cent.  : it  will  be 
long  before  it  can  be  demonstrated  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  people,  that  this  would  be 
a profitable  operation.  But  the  report  as- 
serts a doctrine  of  a different  character,  and 


founds  upon  it  an  argument  addressed  to  the 
purest  and  most  virtuous  feelings  of  the  hu- 
man heart,  which  contemns  all  pecuniary  cal- 
culations. 

If  the  doctrine  be  sound,  1 admit  the  con- 
sequences, and  yield  the  point  that  pecuniary 
considerations  ought  not  to  be  regarded. 
The  report  asserts,  that  this  fund  belongs  to 
posterity — that  we  received  it  from  our  ances- 
tors, in  trust  for  posterity — that  the  “ reve- 
nue is  ours,  the  capital  is  theirs — and  we  are 
bound  to  transmit  it  unimpaired,  and  in  a 
condition  to  yield  them  the  same  revenue 
which  we  have  derived  from  it  ourselves.” 
This  is  not  a new  idea.  The  celebrated  re- 
port on  the  Chemung  canal,  to  which  1 have 
referred,  asserts  the  same  doctrine.  We  are 
threatened  with  the  denunciations  of  poste- 
rity— we  are  to  be  arraigned  at  their  bar  for 
our  prodigality  and  wastefulness — and  they 
are  solemnly  to  disaffirm  and  repudiate  our 
acts.  As  I do  not  expect  to  enjoy  many  op- 
portunities to  discuss  this  matter  with  poste- 
rity— I will  embrace  the  present  to  make  my 
defence  against  any  charges  they  may  prefer 
on  account  of  misapplication  of  the  general 
fund,  at  any  lime  possessed  by  this  state.  I 
deny  totally  the  correctness  of  the  doctrine. 
The  doctrine  is,  that  we  must  transmit  to 
posterity  the  funds  we  receive,  “unimpaired, 
and  in  a condition  to  yield  the  same  revenue 
which  we  have  derived  from  it  ourselves.” 
This  doctrine  forbids  all  use  of  such  funds, 
for  the  purposes  of  improvement.  We  must 
transmit  to  them  the  money,  and  not  an  equi- 
valent, or  more  than  an  equivalent  in  some- 
thing else,  because  they  may  not  be  as  well 
pleased  with  our  acquisitions  for  them,  as 
with  the  money  expended.  This  implies 
that  the  preservation  and  transmission  of 
funds  to  posterity,  is  the  highest  duty  that 
can  devolve  on  man.  This  I deny,  and  also 
deny  that  posterity  can  assert  any  such  right, 
or  prefer  any  such  claim  to  the  unappropriat- 
ed funds,  either  transmitted  to,  or  acquired 
by,  the  present  generation. 

In  the  first  place,  the  doctrine  rests  upon 
a false  foundation  ; it  is  based  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  the  general  fund  was  transmit- 
ted to  us  by  our  ancestors.  This  is  an  error. 
That  fund  did  not  come  to  us  with  any  of 
the  venerable  attributes  of  age.  It  bears  no 
badge  of  antiquity.  It  has  no  immemori- 
al existence  or  sacred  characteristics.  The 
whole  fund  was  the  acquisition  of  the  pre- 
sent generation.  It  is  admitted  in  the  re- 
port, in  accordance  with  the  truth,  that  the 
fund  was  created  by  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands.  Those  lands,  it  is  true,  existed  before 
the  present  generation,  but  they  had  no  avail- 
able value.  Allowing  to  the  present  genera- 
tion the  period  usually  deemed  the  duration 


of  a generation,  (33  years,)  and  it  will  be  | 
found  not  only  that  the  fund  was  created,  but 
the  lands  that  produced  it,  were  mostly  ac- 
quired, during  its  existence.  They  were 
chiefly  purchased  from  the  Indians,  and  when 
acquired  had  but  little  intrinsic  and  no  availa- 
ble value.  The  settlement  of  the  country 
gave  them  value.  That  value  was  imparted 
by  the  expenditure  of  the  wealth,  by  the  toil, 
the  skill,  the  exertions,  and  privations  of  in- 
dividuals. Without  them,  the  lands  from 
which  this  fund  was  created  would  have  had 
no  value.  The  lands,  therefore,  and  the  fund 
derived  from  them,  have  not  been  transmit- 
ted from  generation  to  generation — but  are 
of  recent  acquisition.  According  to  the  doc- 
trine, the  lands,  and  not  the  proceeds,  should 
have  been  transmitted  to  posterity. 

But  this  fund  is  destitute  of  another  cha- 
racteristic of  a sacred  trust.  It  never  was 
appropriated  for  any  specific  object.  Where 
a fund  is  constituted,  appropriated,  and  set 
apart  for  any  specific,  useful  public  purpose, 
the  duty  devolves  upon  each  successive  ge- 
neration to  preserve  it  sacredly,  and  apply 
its  proceeds  faithfully,  according  to  the  de- 
sign of  its  creation.  Such  is  the  character 
of  our  literature  and  common  school  funds, 
and  such  the  duty  which  will  devolve  upon 
succeeding  generations  in  relation  to  them. 
But  the  general  fund  has  no  such  character. 
It  never  received  any  special  appropriation. 
The  power  of  this  generation  over  that  fund, 
was  as  ample  as  over  its  proceeds  ; and  they 
had  a right  to  use  it  for  the  benefit  of  poste- 
rity. By  clearing  and  settling  the  country, 
establishing  schools, building  churches, towns, 
villages,  and  cities — and  enduring  all  the  suf- 
ferings and  privations,  and  incurring  all  the 
expenditure  incident  to  the  establishment  of 
a well  organized  society — they  created  that 
fund.  If  ever  a people  had  a right  to  use 
their  own  acquisitions  as  they  pleased,  surely 
that  fund  might  be  so  used  by  those  who  cre- 
ated it.  How  have  they  used  it  ? If  they 
have  not  been  indifferent  to  their  own  neces- 
sities, they  have  been  mindful  of  posterity. 
They  have  consulted  their  best  interests. 
Instead  of  transmitting  them  unproductive 
lands,  or  treasures  hoarded  with  a miser’s 
care — they  have  made  ample  provision  for 
their  intellectual  and  moral  culture.  They 
have  founded  numerous  academies  and  col- 
leges, and  contributed  largely  to  their  en- 
dowments. F or  such  purposes  they  have  used 
a considerable  portion  of  that  fund.  They 
have  devoted  two  millions  more  of  it  to  the 
perpetual  support  of  academies  and  common 
schools.  Those  large  funds  are  consecrated 
for  ever  to  that  holy  purpose,  and  to  be  aug- 
mented by  the  proceeds  of  all  the  lands  own-  j 
ed  by  the  state  at  the  adoption  of  the  present  | 


constitution.  And  can  posterity  complain  of 
this  provident  care  of  their  minds  and  morals  ? 
This  generation  has  also  built  state  prisons 
at  great  cost,  requiring  another  large  portion 
of  the  general  fund,  for  the  enforcement  of 
the  criminal  code,  and  the  protection  of  soci- 
ety: it  has  also  constructed  magnificent  works 
of  internal  improvement,  thereby  creating 
wealth  beyond  example,  and  diffusing  con- 
venience, comfort,  and  enjoyment  throughout 
the  land.  These  works  are  destined  to  endure 
forever,  and  extend  their  blessings  through 
all  time.  And  after  all  this,  the  state  now 
possesses  a greater  amount  of  funds  than  it 
ever  had  at  any  former  period. 

My  colleague  has  referred  to  October, 
1814,  for  the  state  of  the  general  fund.  It  is 
the  most  favorable  period  that  he  could  have 
chosen  for  his  purposes.  At  no  other  period 
was  it  so  valuable.  But  I will  take  the  fund 
at  the  same  period,  and  still  shew  you  that 
you  have  now  a greater  aggregate  of  funds 
than  you  had  then.  I will  assume  that  the 
canals  are  worth  the  amount  due  for  them. 
That  sum  is  $8,054,000,  which  is  more  than 
two  millions  less  than  they  cost,  that  amount 
having  been  already  paid.  No  man  will 
deny  that  they  are  worth  that  amount.  You 
could  sell  them,  if  you  had  the  power  and 
disposition,  for  twice  that  sum.  Upon  that 
hypothesis,  let  us  make  a comparison  be- 
tween your  financial  condition  in  1814,  and 
at  present : 

In  Oct.  1814,  the  general  fund 
was  $4,396,943  97 

State  debt  due  1,503,683  00 


Excess  of  fund  over  debt  2,893,260  97 
Common  school  fund  822,064  91 


Whole  amount  of  funds  $3,715,325  88 

The  literature  fund  was  not  then  created, 
and  three  years  afterwards  it  amounted  to 
only  $26,000. 

Now  you  have  a clear  general 
fund  of  $684,071  00 

Common  school  fund  1,754,159  40 

Literature  fund  263,507  96 

Canal  fund  2,651,000  00 


$5,352,738  36 
You  have  now,  therefore,  more  than  six- 
teen hundred  thousand  dollars  more  of  funds 
in  the  aggregate,  than  you  possessed  at  that 
period.  It  may  be  said  that  the  canal  fund 
is  pledged  for  the  payment  of  the  canal  debt, 
and  cannot  therefore  be  applied  toother  pur- 
poses. It  is  true  : but  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  canals  are  worth  the  debt,  you  may 
claim  the  existing  fund,  or  what  is  the  same 
thing,  derive  from  the  same  sources  of  reve- 
nue that  produced  it,  an  equal  or  greater 


fund,  after  the  debt  is  paid.  By  the  benefi- 
cent use  of  a small  portion  of  your  general 
fund  in  addition  to  your  credit,  you  have  cre- 
ated a prolific  source  of  revenue.  From  that 
resource,  you  may  create  a fund  larger  than 
you  ever  possessed,  or  could  have  possessed, 
by  hoarding  your  treasures. 

If  then  young  posterity  comes  here  to  com- 
plain, I will  address  him  after  this  manner  : 
“ You  complain  of  your  ancestors,  because 
they  did  not  keep  and  transmit  to  you  the 
fund  created  by  the  sale  of  lands  ! Your  an- 
cestors cleared  up  and  settled  this  fair  coun- 
try for  you.  They  turned  a wilderness  into 
a delightful,  cultivated  country.  They  built 
for  you  school  houses,  academies  and  colle- 
ges, and  endowed  them.  They  created  the 
towns,  villages,  and  cities,  and  all  the  estab- 
lishments of  the  happy  society  to  which  you 
are  introduced.  By  these  means  they  gave 
value  to  the  lands,  and  created  the  fund. 
They  provided  for  your  intellectual  cultiva- 
tion, and  moral  worth.  By  their  internal  im- 
provements, they  have  created  for  you  vast, 
never  failing  resources  of  enjoyment  and 
wealth.  They  transmit  to  you,  also,  a greater 
amount  of  funds  than  they  ever  had  at  any 
one  time,  as  the  product  of  those  lands.  And 
if  all  this  does  not  content  you,  they  have 
done  one  thing  more.  They  have  built  am- 
ple state  prisons  ; and  if  you  do  not  stop 
your  unreasonable,  false  clamors  against  your 
parents,  we  will  shut  you  up !” 

Believing  that  the  government  has  a per- 
fect right  to  use  the  principal  of  the  general 
fund,  as  well  as  its  revenues,  for  ordinary 
purposes  and  expenses,  I am  in  favor  of  using 
that  fund  rather  than  resort  to  taxation.  I 
have  no  reluctance  at  expending  that  fund 
for  the  support  of  the  government,  and  there- 
by avoiding  the  necessity  of  raising  money 
by  taxation  at  such  great  cost  and  personal 
inconvenience.  There  are  many  reasons  in 
favor  of  exhausting  that  fund  for  useful  ob- 
jects. It  is  a deceptive  fund.  Its  real  value 
is  always  less  than  its  apparent  value.  Up- 
wards of  $300,000  of  its  apparent  amount  is 
already  designated  by  the  comptroller  as  bad, 
or  doubtful,  and  deducted  from  the  estimate 
of  its  solvent  and  available  items.  In  its 
management,  the  government  is  perpetually 
subjected  to  loss.  It  is  also  subjected  to 
trouble,  vexation,  and  expense,  in  legislating 
upon  the  various  applications  for  postpone- 
ment of  payment,  remission  of  interest,  and 
occasionally  of  principal.  It  is  also  a vicious 
fund  ; it  leads  to  prodigality  of  expenditure. 
I do  not  by  any  means  admit,  that  prodigality 
has  been  practised  to  the  extent  alleged,  but 
the  instances  of  improvident  expenditures 
that  have  occurred,  may  be  fairly  attributed 
to  the  existence  of  that  fund.  It  is  natural 


that  it  should  be  so.  Appropriations  may 
have  been  made,  because  there  was  a large 
fund,  from  which  they  could  be  drawn,  which 
would  have  been  refused  if  there  had  been 
no  such  fund  in  existence.  The  fact  that  the 
people  will  not  feel,  possibly  not  know,  the 
expenditure,  has  a powerful,  though  perhaps 
imperceptible  influence. 

If  the  present  general  fund  be  notexpend- 
j ed  for  the  support  of  the  government,  it  will 
be  expended  for  objects,  possibly,  less  wor- 
thy. Its  preservation  is  impracticable.  If 
you  impose  a tax,  you  will  not  obtain  your 
object.  The  fund  will  be  expended,  and 
the  people  subjected  to  burdens.  I propose 
to  save  them  from  those  burdens,  by  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  fund.  1 will  hereafter  shew 
that  it  is  sufficient. 

But  a new  doctrine  is  asserted,  which  I 
feel  bound  to  notice,  although  I should  gladly 
have  avoided  the  discussion.  It  is  broadly 
asserted,  that  our  canals  are  not  “ legitimate 
sources  of  revenue.”  That  the  state  has  no 
right  to  raise  revenue  from  them.  That  after 
the  debt  incurred  in  their  construction  is 
paid,  no  greater  revenue  should  be  raised 
from  them  than  is  necessary  to  keep  them  in 
repair.  This  doctrine  is  founded  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  canals  were  made  wholly 
for  the  purposes  of  commerce,  and  not  at  all 
for  revenue — and  we  are  boldly  called  upon 
to  shew  the  title  of  the  state  to  the  canals 
which  it  has  constructed.  With  your  indul- 
gence, sir,  I will  present  that  title. 

The  constitution,  after  providing  that  tolls 
shall  be  imposed  on  all  the  “ navigable  com- 
munications between  the  great  western  and 
northern  lakes  and  the  Atlantic  ocean,  which 
now  are,  or  hereafter  shall  be  completed” — 
and  providing  that  those  tolls  shall  be  pledg- 
ed for  the  canal  debt,  and  shall  neither  be 
reduced  nor  diverted  until  the  payment  of 
that  debt,  proceeds  to  declare,  that  “ the  le- 
gislature shall  never  sell  or  dispose  of  the 
salt  springs,  belonging  to  this  state,  nor  the 
lands  contiguous  thereto,  which  may  be  ne- 
cessary or  convenient  for  their  use,  nor  the 
said  navigable  communications,  or  any  part 
or  section  thereof ; but  the  same  shall  be 
and  remain  the  properly  of  this  state.” 
There,  sir,  is  the  title  deed,  deliberately  ex- 
ecuted by  the  whole  people.  Thosfc  who 
deny  the  title  of  the  state,  must  come  into 
court,  and  deny  their  own  deed.  This  was 
the  assertion  of  no  new  claim — it  was  not  the 
assumption  of  a title,  but  was  only  a more 
formal  and  solemn  declaration  of  a pre-ex- 
isting claim  and  title,  which  had  never  been 
disputed.  It  was  a provision  declaring  not 
only  the  title  of  the  state  to  the  canals,  as  it 
was  admitted  to  exist,  but  that  such  title 
should  remain  forever.  That  provision  de- 


8 


prived  the  legislature  of  the  power  of  chang- 
ing that  title,  or  parting  with  it,  or  diminish- 
ing the  property  of  the  state  in  those  works. 
That  provision  declares,  that  the  canals 
shall  be  and  remain  the  property  ot  the  state. 
Property,  for  what  ? Property  only  to  be 
abandoned — to  be  made  a common  highway? 
That  would  be  a novel  definition  of  the  word. 
The  term,  property,  must  have  acquired 
some  new  meaning.  If  the  ownerof  property 
has  not  a right  to  use  it  in  a manner  most 
beneficial  to  himself,  without  interference 
with  the  rights  of  others,  and  to  determine 
for  himself  what  manner  will  be  most  bene- 
ficial, our  ideas  of  property  are  all  wrong. 
Property,  according  to  this  doctrine,  instead 
of  conferring  upon  the  owner,  the  absolute, 
uncontrolled  right  to  use  and  manage  it  for 
his  own  benefit,  imposes  the  duty  of  keeping 
and  preserving  it  for  the  use  of  others.  But 
what  meaning  was  affixed  to  the  word  pro- 
perty, when  the  provision  was  inserted  in 
the  constitution,  and  ratified  by  the  people  ? 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  word  has  now, 
and  must  forever  retain,  the  same  meaning 
that  it  had  then. 

Property,  in  that  particular  use  of  the  word, 
must  now  and  forever  be  understood,  as  the 
framers  of  the  constitution,  at  the  time  of  its 
insertion,  and  the  people,  at  the  adoption  of 
that  instrument,  understood  it.  Was  it  then 
understood  to  confer  no  right  to  raise  a re- 
venue ? Was  such  a doctrine  then  asserted  ? 
Was  such,  then,  declared  to  be  the  meaning 
and  limitation  of  the  provision  ? The  canals 
were  then  in  progress.  The  purposes  for 
which  they  were  undertaken — the  objects  to 
be  accomplished  by  them — the  interests  and 
rights  of  the  state  in  and  over  them — were 
well  understood.  The  previous  history  of 
the  canals  was  fresh  ; the  designs,  the  mo- 
tives that  led  to  the  commencement  of  those 
great  works,  were  familiarly  and  universally 
known.  Was  ft  then  declared  that  the  ob- 
ject of  securing  to  the  state  a perpetual  pro- 
perty in  them,  implied  a denial  of  the  right 
of  raising  revenue  from  them  ? No  such  doc- 
trine was  then  asserted — no  such  pretence 
was  then  made — no  man  then  thought  of  giv- 
ing such  a restricted  meaning  to  the  word 
property,  or  of  thus  limiting  the  power  and 
rights  of  the  state.  Nor  had  such  a doctrine 
been  asserted  at  any  former  period.  This 
view  leads  to  an  inquiry  as  to  the  motives, 
purposes,  and  objects  for  which  the  canals 
were  commenced  and  constructed. 

The  committee  on  finance,  in  their  report, 
declare  that  the  “ canals  were  made  for  com- 
merce,” and  the  course  of  argument  in  which 
they  indulge,  would  imply  that  they  were 
made  exclusively  for  that  object ; that  no 
reference  whatever  was  had  to  revenue. 


Indeed,  that  is  the  argument  of  my  colleague, 
(Mr.  Bronson,)  and  the  gentleman  from  the 
8th,  (Mr.  Tracy.) 

The  canal  board,  in  their  report,  made  in 
obedience  to  a resolution  of  the  Senate,  in 
April,  1830,  say  : “ The  advantages  to  the 
people  of  this  state  to  be  derived  from  the 
construction  of  the  navigable  communications, 
between  the  great  western  and  northern  lakes 
and  the  Atlantic  ocean,  were  doubtless  based 
upon  the  anticipated  revenues  which  these 
works  would  produce. 

1 do  not  cite  the  opinion  of  the  canal  board 
as  authority.  On  a former  occasion  I labor- 
ed to  shew  its  fallacy.  But  I introduce  it 
for  the  purpose  of  presenting  the  extremes 
of  the  doctrine  on  this  subject.  The  canal 
board  asserts,  that  revenue  was  the  primary 
object  in  the  construction  of  the  canals.  The 
committee  declare  it  was  no  object  all — that 
commerce  was  not  only  the  primary,  but  the 
exclusive  object.  Here  there  is  a palpable, 
irreconcilable  disagreement.  As  1 under- 
stand this  subject,  both  are  alike  in  error. 
On  the  occasion  1 have  referred  to,  (the  dis- 
cussion on  the  bill  for  the  construction  of  the 
Chenango  canal,)  I endeavored  to  show  that 
the  primary  object  for  which  the  system  of 
internal  improvements  was  undertaken,  and 
the  canals  were  constructed,  was  the  exten- 
sion of  commercial  facilities — that  revenue 
was  an  object  secondary  and  subordinate  to 
commerce — but  nevertheless,  with  equal  cer- 
tainty, an  object.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me, 
on  this  occasion,  to  prove  that  commerce 
was  the  primary  object,  since  the  report  and 
the  gentlemen  who  support  its  doctrines  as- 
sert that  it  was  not  only  the  primary,  but  the 
exclusive  object.  To  determine  the  truth, 
in  this  particular,  we  must  refer  to  the  co- 
temporary history.  I assert,  that  revenue 
was  an  object ; and  in  support  of  that,  I ap- 
peal to  every  public  document  having  any 
bearing  upon  this  point,  from  the  first  sug- 
gestion of  the  project  to  the  completion  of 
the  Erie  and  Champlain  canals.  Heretofore, 

I have  presented  some  of  the  documents  that 
contain  this  proof.  I will  not  now  produce 
any,  or  appeal  to  anyone  in  particular, but  1 
refer  to  every  one,  from  the  commencement 
of  the  system  to  the  completion  of  the  yvorks. 
You  will  find  revenue  conspicuously  exhi- 
bited, as  one  of  the  inducements  to  the  com- 
mencement, one  of  the  objects  for  the  pro- 
secution, one  of  the  great  advantages  to  be 
enjoyed  by  the  people  of  this  state  from  the 
completion — in  the  communications  of  the 
executive — the  reports  of  committees  of  both 
houses — and  in  the  reports  of  the  canal  com- 
missioners. Nor  was  that  revenue  to  be 
raised  solely  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the 
debt  incurred  in  the  construction,  and  reim- 

t 


burning  the  general  fund  lor  its  advances, 
but  the  further  application  of  that  revenue 
was  distinctly  indicated.  In  the  same  re- 
ports, it  was  continually  and  confidently  pre- 
sented to  the  legislature  and  the  people,  that 
the  canals,  after  the  payment  of  the  cost  of 
their. construction,  would  afford  a prolific  re- 
venue, to  be  applied  to  the  further  prosecu- 
tion of  the  system  of  internal  improvements, 
the  promotion  of  education,  and  the  suppoit 
of  the  government.  These  were  the  great 
and  useful  purposes  to  which  the  revenue  to 
be  afforded  by  the  canals  was  to  be  devoted, 
and  these  views  were  presented,  in  the  most 
imposing  manner,  as  inducements  to  the  com- 
mencement and  prosecution  of  the  work. 
No  proof  of  these  facts  is  necessaiy.  My 
colleague,  (Mr.  Bronson,)  and  the  gentleman 
from  the  8th,  admit  that  such  are  the  contents 
of  the  public  documents.  But  my  colleague 
insists,  that  they  constituted  no  pledge  that 
revenue  should  be  raised  from  the  canals, 
and  that  those  views,  presented  in  such  do- 
cuments, were  no  more  important  than  his 
report  containing  the  contrary  doctrine — that 
both  express  the  opinions  ot  the  respective 
committees  whence  they  emanated,  and  are 
entitled  to  equal  respect.  I freely  .admit 
that  his  report  resembles  those  public  docu- 
ments, in  some  of  its  characteristics.  In  abi- 
lity, and  respectability  of  authorship,  it  may 
be  entitled  to  equality.  But  in  one  particu- 
lar, it  is  yet  most  essentially  dissimilar. 
Those  public  documents  leceived  the  sar  c- 
tion  of  the  legislature.  They  were  accom- 
panied or  followed  by  bills  making  appro- 
priations for  the  prosecution  of  the  work. 
The  passage  of  those  bills,  founded  upon 
these  documents,  furnishes  evidence  that 
their  principles  met  the  approbation  of  the 
legislature  and  the  people.  The  report  of 
my  honorable  colleague  has  not  yet  that  high 
and  solemn  sanction.  When  the  bill  for  the 
imposition  of  a tax,  which  he  introduced  in 
conjunction  with; that  report,  shall  have  be- 
come a law,  his  report  will  more  closely  re- 
semble those  other  documents,  as  matter  of 
evidence  and  authority.  But, until  that  event 
shall  accrue,  his  report  is  evidence  only  of 
the  opinions  of  those  who  embrace  its  doc- 
trines. 

, The  gentleman  from  the  8th,  says,  that 
opinions  were  confidently  expressed  in  the 
legislature  and  the  community,  adverse  to 
the  utility  of  the  contemplated  canals,  either 
for  commerce  or  revenue  ; and  those  opinions 
may  be  offset  against  the  highly  favorable 
and  flattering  ones  contained  in  the  public 
documents.  There  is  one  vast  difference. 
The  dismal  forebodings,  the  ill-boding  pro- 
phecies of  the  opponents  6f  the  canal  policy, 
were  rejected  and  disregarded,  while  the 


views  presented  in  the  public  documents  of 
advantages  to  commerce,  and  abundance  of 
revenue,  influenced  the  action  of  the  legisla- 
ture. The  funds  to  execute  the  canals  were 
appropriated  under  these  inducements.  By 
means  of  them,  votes  were  obtained  in  favor 
of  the  bills  granting  the  supplies.  The  ob- 
ject of  revenue  was  a powerful  and  indispen- 
sable inducement.  In  the  passage  of  the  bills, 
the  votes  of  many  were  required  who  repre- 
sented counties  and  districts,  which,  from 
their  situation,  would  not  partak'e  directly  in 
the  commercial  advantages  created  by  the 
canals.  To  influence  them,  the  inducement 
of  revenue  was  presented.  It  was  powerfully 
urged,  and  proved  effectual.  Revenue  was 
to  be  the  means  by  which  the  advantages  of 
the  canals  were  to  be  more  nearly  equalized. 
That  revenue  was  to  be  used  to  extend  the 
benefits  of  the  canal  system  to  other  sections 
of  the  state.  It  was  also  to  be  applied  to  the  , 
promotion  of  education,  and  the  diffusion  of^ 
its  blessings.  * 

It  was  likewise  to  contribute  to  the  ordina-^ 
ry  expenses  of  the  government,  and  the  pros-^, 
pect  was  presented  of  freedom  from  taxation 
forever.  These  were  the  pretences  and  in- 
ducements by  which  the  necessary  funds 
were  obtained.  The  supplies  were  voted — 
the  canals  made — their  immense  commercial 
advantages  secured — and  now  we  are  told 
that  notwithstanding  such  were  the  pretences 
and  inducements,  no  such  thing  was  ever  in- 
tended. Revenue  was  no  object ; and  when 
the  debt  is  paid,  and  the  general  fund  reim- 
bursed, the  tolls  must  be  abolished.  Sir, 
we  have  a statute  declaring  it  to  be  a mis- 
demeanor to  obtain  goods  under  false  pre- 
tences. Will  you  explain  to  me  why  it  is 
less  heinious  in  point  of  morality  to  obtain 
money  by  false  pretences  than  goods  ? If 
the  inducements  held  out  were  real,  sincere, 
and  influential,  then  revenue  was  an  object 
in  the  construction  of  the  canals.  If  they 
were  not,  then  the  money  was  obtained  by 
false  pretences — by  fraud — and  it  will  be  1 
fraudulent  in  those  who  disappoint  the  ex- 
pectations which  were  created  by  those  in- 
ducements. I desire  not  to  be  a partaker 
in  that  fraud,  or  in  its  fruits. 

The  property  of  the  state  in  the  canals  is 
as  ample,  and  secured  by  the  same  instru- 
ment and  terms,  as  in  the  salt  springs  ; and 
it  might  with  the  same  propriety  be  contend- 
ed, that  the  state  should  not  raise  revenue 
from  them  as  from  the  canals.  But,  say  gen- 
tlemen, commerce  ought  to  have  been  the 
sole  object  in  undertaking  the  canals,  and 
therefore  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  it  was 
the  exclusive  object.  The  inquiry  is  not 
what  should  have  been,  bat  wbat  actually 
were  the  motives  that  led  to  engagement  in 


the  enterprise.  There  is  no  difficulty  now 
in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  commerce 
was,  of  itself,  a sufficient  object,  and  if  the 
canals  had  been  undertaken  for  that  alone, 
it  would  have  been  an  abundant  inducement. 
Vet,  it  is  certain  that  so  far  was  that  from 
being  the  exclusive  object,  that  one  such  re- 
port as  that  now  under  consideration,  or  one 
such  speech  as  that  of  my  colleague,  or  the 
gentleman  from  the  8th — from  any  friend  of 
the  canals,  at,  or  soon  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  work — would  have  blown  up  the 
whole  system.  It  is  easy  now  to  talk  of  the 
vast  importance  of  the  enterprise — its  im- 
mense benefits — the  facility  with  which  the 
work  was  executed — the  fact  that  there  really 
was  no  hazard — that  success  was  certain,  and 
recompense  superabundant — of  the  folly  and 
absurdity  of  those  who  doubted  the  practi- 
cability or  utility  of  the  work,  and  hesitated 
to  commence  it.  Yet  far  different  was  the 
case  when  i's  commencement  was  a subject 
'or  consideration.  All  then  was  doubt  and 
mcertainty.  We  had  no  experience  to 
guide  us — no  results  on  which  to  found  cal- 
culations. Votes  were  to  be  obtained. 
They  were  withheld  from  honest  fears  of  the 
consequences,  and  finally  given  with  reluc- 
tance. All  the  inducements  which  the  works 
promised,  were  held  out — repeated — and 
powerfully  urged.  Of  them,  revenue  was 
on$  of  the  most  influential.  It  may  be  with 
perfect  safety  affirmed,  that  without  that,  in 
addition  to  commerce,  the  work  would  never 
have  been  commenced,  or  if  begun,  would 
have  been  only  partially  executed.  It  must 
be  in  the  recollection  of  us  all,  that  the  exe 
cution  of  the  western  section  was  long  a mat- 
ter of  debate  and  hesitation.  A different 
plan— -that  of  connecting  the  canal  with  Lake 
Ontario,  by  the  Oswego  river — was  recom- 
mended, in  a powerful  pamphlet,  which 
commanded  the  assent  of  most  enlightened 
minds.  It  is  probably  owing  to  the  intelli- 
gence, firmness,  and  decision  of  two  indivi- 
duals, inhabitants  of  the  same  town  with 
yourself,  Mr.  chairman,  (Mr.  Foster  was  then 
in  the  chair,) — one  at  the  head  of  the  engi  • 
neer  department,  and  the  other  chairman 
of  the  canal  committee,  of  the  assembly — that 
the  western  section  was  ever  made.  I rejoice 
that  it  was  constructed,  although  its  execu- 
tion cost  the  state  more  than  three  millions 
of  dollars. 

Most  of  the  commercial  advantages  would 
have  been  secured  without  it,  but  the  bene- 
fits to  the  western  section  would  never  have 
been  so  largely  enjoyed.  1 admit  that  the 
whole  state  has  bee.*>  benefitted  by  the  canals, 
but  those  benefits  have  not  been  equally  dis- 
tributed. Some  sections,  in  consequence  of 
their  situation,  have  partaken  of  them  much 


10  • 

more  largely  than  others.  I recently  gnre 
you  the  evidence  of  the  benefits  derived  by 
the  city  of  New  York.  I beg  leave  to  refer 
to  it  again.  Take  the  assessed  value  of  the 
real  estate  of  that  city  for  two  periods  of 
seven  years  each,  and  you  have  the  proof  in 
the  most  conspicuous  and  conclusive  form. 

The  first  period  embraces  the  years  from 
1817  to  1824,  inclusive.  In  the  first  of  those 
years,  the  assessed  amount  of  real  estate  was 
upwards  of  fifty-eight  millions  of  dollars,  in 
the  last  it  had  sunk  to  little  more  than  fifty- 
two  millions.  While,  therefore,  the  city  en- 
joyed all  that  the  state  of  the  world  could 
permit  of  foreign  commerce,  her  real  estate 
diminished  almost  six  millions  of  dollars. 

The  second  period  embraces  the  years  from 
1825  to  1831,  inclusive.  At  the  close  of  the 
first  of  those  years,  the  canals  were  comple- 
ted ; but  the  use  and  advantage  of  a great 
portion  of  them  had  been  enjoyed  the  whole 
year.  In  1825,  the  valuation  of  the  real  es- 
tate in  that  city  amounted  to  upwards  of  fifty- 
eight  millions — more  than  six  millions  above 
the  valuation  of  the  preceding  year ; and  in 
1831,  it  exceeded  ninety-five  millions,  giving 
an  increase  of  almost  forty-four  millions  in 
seven  years,  and  an  average  increase  of  more 
than  six  millions  a year.  When  this  tide  of 
prosperity  commenced  its  flow,  the  city  was 
not  stationary,  but  on  the  decline.  Its  ad- 
vancement has  been  sudden  and  rapid,  be- 
yond all  former  example.  Nearly  forty-four 
millions  of  dollars — almost  one  half  of  the 
assessed  value  of  its  real  estate,  has  been 
created  by  the  canals.  Y et  this  effect  does 
not  equal  the  effect  produced  by  the  canals 
upon  the  western  section  of  the  state.  The 
people  of  that  highly  favored  region,  owe  to 
them  more  than  half  of  all  they  are  worth. 
Some  idea  of  the  benefits  conferred  upon 
that  part  of  the  state,  may  be  acquired  from 
the  comparison  of  the  expenses  of  transpor- 
tation before  and  since  the  Erie  canal  was 
completed.  Before,  the  expense  from  Alba- 
ny to  Buffalo  was  $70  a ton  : now  it  is  $19. 
From  Buffalo  to  Albany,  it  was  $50  : now  it 
is  $ 10 — half  freight,  half  tolls.  The  enhance- 
ment in  the  value  of  the  real  estate,  may  be 
estimated  from  the  increased  value  imparted 
to  its  products,  and  from  the  towns,  villager 
and  cities  which  the  canal  has  created  along 
its  line.  What  the  western  people  pay  in 
tolls,  is  therefore  a small  tax  for  immense  pe- 
cuniary benefits. 

The  gentleman  from  the  8th  said,  that  the 
state  of  New  York  had  been  styled  magna- 
nimous ; and  he  seemed  to  imply,  that,  by 
attempting  to  raise  revenue  from  the  canals, 
she  would  forfeit  her  character  for  magnani- 
mity. New  York  has  indeed  a lofty  charac- 
ter for  magnanimity,  energy,  and  enterprise. 

• 


Long  may  she  retain  it ! Long  may  that 
character,  and  a still  more  enviable  charac- 
ter for  justice,  stand  recorded  in  the  pure 
and  exalted  language  of  deserved  commen- 
dation ! Far  distant  may  the  day  be,  when 
New  York  shall  cease  to  be  magnanimous — 
still  more  distant  may  that  day  be,  when  she 
shall  cease  to  be  just — but  still  more  remote 
may  that  day  be,  when  the  west,  the  gene- 
rous, glorious  west— -shall  become  selfish, 
narrow,  and  illiberal  in  her  policy. 

But  it  is  affirmed,  that  “ public  works  are 
not  legitimate  subjects  of  revenue.”  This 
proposition  seems  to  assert,  that  there  is  some 
inflexible  principle,  either  in  morality  or  po- 
licy, which  forbids  the  raising  of  revenue 
from  such  sources.  What  is  it  ? Where  is 
it  to  be  found  ? Is  it  some  cardinal  princi- 
ple in  nature  ? Does  it  form  the  foundation 
of  a code  of  ethics  ? Is  it  matter  of  conven- 
tional agreement  ? Is  it  a settled  point  in 
international  law?  Is  there  any  prohibition 
contained  in  any  written  constitution  ? Has 
the  conduct  of  nations  repudiated  the  policy? 
These  are  subjects  on  which  the  advocates 
of  the  proposition  should  enlighten  the 
world.  Let  them  tell  us  why  “public  works 
are  not  legitimate  subjects  of  revenue.”  If 
they  were  constructed  expressly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  revenue,  made  by  original  intent  sub- 
jects of  revenue — let  them  explain  why  they 
“ are  not  legitimate.”  The  gentleman  from 
the  8th,  says,  “ if  the  Erie  canal  had  not 
been  constructed  by  the  state,  it  would  have 
been  constructed  by  an  incorporated  compa- 
ny.” Without  stopping  to  discuss  the  pro- 
bability of  such  an  event,  let  us  inquire  what 
difference  that  would  have  made  in  the  mat- 
ter of  taxation.  If  the  state  has  not  a right 
to  raise  revenue  from  public  works  for  the 
benefit  of  the  whole  community,  whence  has 
it  a right  to  authorise  a company  to  raise  re- 
venue for  its  private  emolument  ? With  all 
incorporations  for  the  execution  of  public 
works,  revenue,  if  not  the  exclusive  object, 
is  an  essential  and  controlling  inducement : 
no  public  works  would  ever  be  executed  by 
an  incorporation  without  it.  That  revenue 
can  be  raised  only  by  a tax  on  those  who 
use  it.  The  government  confers  upon  the 
incorporation  the  power  of  taxation.  If  it 
has  not  a right  to  tax  directly,  by  its  own  au- 
thority, for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  state — 
tell  me,  sir,  whence  it  derives  the  right  to 
tax  by  indirection,  for  private  purposes.  And 
would  the  condition  of  the  western  people 
have  been  improved,  if  that  magnificent  work 
had  been  executed  by  an  incorporation,  ra- 
ther than  constructed  by  the  state.  An  incor- 
poration for  that  purpose  must  have  had  a 
charter,  either  interminable  or  of  very  long 
duration,. and  conferring  very  ample  powers. 


No  other  would  have  been  accepted  for  an 
enterprise  so  vast,  expensive,  and,  then 
deemed,  so  hazardous.  The  previous  prac 
tice  of  the  state  justifies  the  belief  that  such 
a charter,  if  granted,  Would  have  been  with 
unlimited  duration.  The  practice  of  the 
state  had  been,  in  granting  incorporations 
for  public  improvements  of  far  less  magni  - 
tude, (roads  and  bridges,)  to  make  them 
without  limitation  of  time,  or  grant  them 
upon  a condition  which  rendered  them  per- 
petual. And  even  now,  when  public  opinion 
and  the  practice  of  the  legislature  has  chang- 
ed on  that  subject,  we  grant  incorporations 
for  rail  roads  to  endure  lor  fifty  years.  If 
we  have  a right  to  grant  them  tor  that  peri- 
od, we  have  for  any  longer  term.  The 
question  of  right  is  confined  to  the  existence 
of  a generation.  If  we  have  a right  to  grant 
an  incorporation  to  continue  beyond  the  dur- 
ation of  a generation,  we  have  an  equal  right 
to  extend  its  existence  to  any  imaginable 
period.  If  we  have  a right  to  bind  the  next 
succeeding  generation,  we  have  the  same 
right  to  bind  the  tenth  or  hundredth  genera- 
tion. Mr.  Jefferson,  who  has  discoursed 
upon  this  subject,  considers  nineteen  years 
as  the  existence  of  a generation  ; that  is, 
that  a majority  of  the  actors  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  period,  will  be  displaced 
by  others  at  its  close,  and  therefore  con- 
cludes that  that  is  the  period  for  which  a go- 
vernment may  make  its  acts,  affecting  pro- 
perty, binding.  The  more  usual  estimate 
for  the  duration  of  a generation,  is  thirty 
three  years.  Whatever  the  period  of  its 
existence  may  be,  when  we  have  passed  its 
boundaiy,  the  point  at  which  we  shall  stop 
is  matter  of  entirely  arbitrary  assumption, 
fixed  and  determined  by  no  principle  of  right. 

We  grant  these  charters,  too,  with  unre- 
stricted powers  of  taxation.  If  therefore  the 
practice  of  the  legislature  is,  and  always  has 
been  to  grant  charters  to  companies  for  pub- 
lic improvements,  and  for  objects  compara- 
tively unimportant,  for  long  or  unlimited  du- 
ration, and,  in  many  cases,  with  unrestricted 
powers  of  raising  revenue  by  means  of  tolls 
or  duties,  it  may  be  safely  assumed,  that,  if 
an  incorporation  were  to  have  been  created, 
for  the  construction  of  the  Erie  canal,  it  would 
have  been  invested  with  a long  if  not  perpe- 
tual existence,  and  the  amplest  powers. 
The  argument,  then,  of  the  gentleman  on  this 
point  amounts  to  this  : the  state  has  no  right 
to  raise  revenue  from  the  Erie  canal  for  the 
benefit  of  the  whole  community,  but  it  would 
have  a right  to  raise  any  amount  of  revenue, 
and  for  all  time,  by  indirection,  for  the  exclu- 
sive benefit  of  an  incorporation  ; and  the  peo- 
ple of  the  west,  instead  of  having  that  reve- 
nue regulated  by  the  government  in  which 


they  themselves  exercise  a powerful  influ* 
ence,  would  have  been  in  an  improved  con- 
dition, if  they  had  been  subject  to  unlimited 
taxation,  imposed  by  the  “ tender  mercies” 
of  an  artificial,  soulless  being. 

The  gentleman  from  the  8th  said  he  voted 
for  the  Chenango  canal — that  in  that  meas- 
ure he  acted  with  me — he  was  satisfied  that 
it  was  a risk  the  state  ought  to  run — he  sup- 
posed his  views  and  mine  were  alike,  but  he 
was  surprised  to  find  that  I advocated  the 
payment  of  the  cost  of  that  contemplated 
improvement  out  of  the  funds  to  be  accumu- 
lated from  the  canal  revenues.  If  he  had 
reflected,  he  could  have  been  at  no  loss  as 
to  the  motives  of  my  action.  They  had 
been  plainly,  explicitly,  and  repeatedly 
stated.  My  principle  is,  let  the  system  ex- 
tend itself.  One  purpose  of  the  canal  reve- 
nues was  to  extend  the  system. 

I do  say,  pay  the  cost  of  the  short,  tribu- 
tary canals  out  of  the  funds  which  will  be  ac- 
cumulated from  the  canal  revenues.  And  1 
maintain  the  justice  of  this  on  the  principle 
of  contribution.  A1J  the  tributary  canals 
contribute  to  increase  the  tolls  of  the  Erie 
canal,  and  thereby  swell  the  amount  of  the 
canal  revenues,  and  hasten  the  period  when 
the  canal  fund  will  equal  the  amount  of  the 
canal  debt.  As  the  cost  of  the  construction 
of  the  Erie  canal  will  be  paid,  to  some  ex- 
tent, by  the  contributions  of  the  tributary 
canals,  it  is  the  plainest  principle  of  justice 
that  when  its  debt  is  paid,  it  should  refund 
to  the  tributaries  at  least  an  equal  amount, 
if  so  much  should  be  required. 

The  Chenango  canal  would  be  a large 
contributor  to  the  revenues  of  the  Erie  canal, 
and  upon  the  same  principle  the  funds  ac- 
cumulated from  those  revenues  may  with 
perfect  justice  be  applied  to  the  payment  of 
the  cost  of  its  construction. 

But  the  gentleman  says  the  cost  of  the 
Champlain  canal  is  charged  upon  the  reve- 
nues of  the  Erie.  I regret  that  the  genfle- 
inan  had  not  been  in  his  place  and  listened 
to  the  argument  of  my  colleague  from  Onei- 
da, (Mr.  Foster,)  for  he  would  have  seen 
proved,  as  clear  as  demonstration  can  make 
it,  that  the  Champlain  canal,  after  paying 
all  the  expenses  incurred  for  its  own  suste- 
nation,  and  the  interest  upon  its  cost,  affords 
an  annual  surplus  to  be  applied  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  debt  incurred  for  its  construc- 
tion. On  a former  occasion  he  made  the 
same  clear  proof  in  reference  to  the  Cayuga 
and  Seneca  canal. 

The  Oswego  canal  has  been  represented 
as  failing  to  sustain  itself.  Great  injustice 
has  been  done  it.  Let  it  have  credit  for 
what  it  has  done,  and  a very  different  result 
will  be  produced.  In  the  first  place  it  cre- 


ated a portion  of  the  means  employed  for 
its  construction — certain  lands  were  appro- 
priated by  the  state  for  that  purpose.  The 
canal  was  commenced,  and  tne  lands  have 
since  been  sold.  They  have  produced  up- 
wards of  $173,000.  Will  you  tell  me,  sir, 
what  they  would  have  produced  at  the  same 
time,  if  the  canal  had  not  been  undertaken? 
It  cannot  be  told  ; but  all  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  the  circumstances,  know  well,  that 
the  product  would  not  have  been  near  that 
amount.  From  the  cost  of  construction 
should  have  been  deducted  die  sum  which 
the  canal  added  to  the  value  of  those  lands. 
The  state  has  yet  other  lands  which  have 
also  been  greatly  enhanced  in  value  by  the 
same  cause.  The  canal  commissioners  ad- 
mit that  the  Oswego  canal  should  have  credit 
for  $3000  annually,  for  tolls  on  wood  per- 
mitted to  pass  toll  free,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
salt  springs.  If  you  will  estimate  the  effect 
of  that  canal  in  diminishing  the  expense  in 
the  manufacture,  and  consequently  the  ex- 
tent of  the  sale  of  that  article,  and  in  the  in- 
crease of  canal  revenue  from  salt  duties,  you 
will  find  the  Oswego  canal  entitled  to  much 
larger  credit  on  that  account.  But  its  de- 
mands upon  the  Erie  canal  for  contributions, 
are  of  still  greater  amount.  Every  thing 
which  passes  from  the  Oswego  canal  on  to 
the  Erie,  and  would  not  have  passed  without 
it,  pays  a much  larger  sum  in  tolls  on  the 
Erie  canal  than  it  does  on  the  Oswego.  The 
length  of  the  Oswego  canal  is  38  miles ; it 
unites  with  the  Erie  canal  170  miles  from  its 
junction  with  the  Hudson  river  ; commodi- 
ties passing  on  the  Oswego  do  not  pay  toll, 
on  the  average,  on  its  whole  length.  It  is 
fair,  therefore,  to  assume  that  these  commo- 
dities pay  five  times  the  amount  on  the  Erie 
canal,  that  they  do  on  the  Oswego.  I will 
notice  a single  item.  Lumber  constitutes  an 
important  one  in  the  transportation  on  the 
Oswego.  Without  that  canal  not  a stick  of 
it  would  ever  have  found  its  way  into  the 
Erie  canal.  It  now  goes  to  the  Hudson  river. 
It  , therefore,  lumber  pays  $4000  on  the  Os- 
wego canal,  it  contributes  $20,000  annually 
to  the  tolls  of  the  Erie  canal.  Several  mil- 
lions cf  feet  pass  every  year,  and  that  esti- 
mate is  probably  below  the  reality.  A care- 
ful scrutiny  would  'produce  a similar  result 
as  to  every  article  transported  on  the  Oswe- 
go canal,  and  establish  the  fact,  that  the  ca- 
nal has  afforded  every  year  a surplus  after 
defraying  all  its  expenses.  It  will  also  exhi- 
bit the  further  fact,  that  the  Erie  canal  is, 
to  a respectable  amount,  the  debtor  of  the 
tributary  canals. 

The  report  affirms  that  “ the  interests  of 
commerce  are  paramount  to  all  others” — and 
that  “ commerce  should  not  be  made  to  suf- 


* 13 


fer  (or  the  incidental  advantages  which  the 
canal  has  conferred  on  the  adjacent  country.” 

This  proposition  gives  a wonderful  promi- 
nence to  commerce  ; and  to  advance  its  inte  - 
rests tolls  on  the  transportation  on  the  canals 
must  be  abolished.  Sir,  what  is  commerce  ? 
It  is  merely  the  exchange  of  the  surplus  pro- 
ductions of  agriculture  and  manufactures. — 
Commerce  is  not  the  original,  primary  inte- 
rest. It  is  founded  and  dependent  upon  ag- 
riculture and  manufactures.  They  are  the 
aliment  of  commerce.  They  furnish  the 
materials,  and  without  them  it  cannot  exist. 
Agriculture  and  manufactures  may  exist 
without  commerce.  They  may  not  flourish 
without  it.  Agriculture  and  manufactures 
are  essential  to  commerce,  and  all  are  mu- 
tually beneficial  to  each  other.  How  then 
can  it  be  affirmed  that  the  “ interests  of  com- 
merce are  paramount  to  all  others”  ? The 
proposition  seems  to  imply  that  commerce 
should  not  be  taxed.  Its  interests  are  so  sa- 
cred and  paramount,  that  it  should  be  ex- 
empted from  a share  in  the  burdens  which 
the  public  exigencies  require.  This  seems 
to  imply  that  taxation  on  commerce  falls 
solely  on  that,  and  does  not  affect  other  great 
interests.  Is  such  the  fact  ? These  allega- 
tions are  made  in  reference  to  the  canal  tolls. 
Do  they  affect  commerce  alone  ? Who  pays 
them  ? Not  the  merchant,  through  whose 
hands  the  commodities  on  which  they  are 
levied,  pass.  He  reckons  the  money  he  ad- 
vances for  tolls  as  a part  of  the  cost,  and 
makes  a profit  upon  it.  The  tolls  upon  the 
merchandize  transported  upon  the  canals  are 
paid  by  the  consumers  ; and  upon  the  pro- 
ducts of  the  soil,  by  the  consumers  or  pro- 
ducers. And  who  are  they?  Not  alone 
men  engaged  in  commerce,  but  individuals 
of  every  avocation  in  life.  The  canal  tolls 
affect  commerce  least  of  all  the  great  inte- 
rests, and  fall  most  heavily  upon  manufac- 
tures and  agriculture.  Those  tolls  are  paid 
as  all  duties  and  imposts  are,  by  those  who 
produce  or  consume  the  articles  upon  which 
they  are  imposed.  Tolls,  duties,  and  im- 
posts, may  be  impediments  to  commerce 
when  so  high  as  to  amount  to  prohibitions  ; 
but  unless  they  are,  whatever  they  may  be, 
they  are  paid  chiefly  by  those  who  are  not 
connected  wfith  commerce.  It  might  with 
equal  propriety  be  contended  that  all  duties 
and  imposts  on  importations  should  be  abol- 
ished, because  the  “interests  of  commerce 
are  paramount  to  all  others.”  Then  all  the 
public  revenue  must  be  raised  by  direct  tax- 
ation. This  doctrine  may  be  rendered 
beautiful  in  theory,  and  supported  by  plau- 
sible reasoning  and  imposing  statements ; 
but  it  is  against  the  judgment  of  the  world. 
If  tolls,  duties  and  imposts  are  taxes  upon 


commerce,  all  civilized  nations  tax  com- 
merce ; it  is  the  practice  of  all  Christendom* 
In  the  policy  of  this,  all  mankind  agree.  It 
is  not  because  it  is  a tax  on  commerce  exclu- 
sively, but  because  it  is  a convenient  mode 
of  levying  taxes  upon  all  the  members  of  a 
community  who  should  pay  them.  Nor  is 
it  solely  because  it  is  easier  for  a government 
to  raise  revenue  in  that  mode  than  in  any 
other;  but  it  is  because  communities  prefer 
to  pay  taxes  in  that  way.  It  may  not  be  the 
most  equal,  but  it  is  the  most  agreeable  way 
of  providing  for  the  support  of  government. 
What  has  been  always  done  and  is  now  uni- 
versally practised,  with  the  unanimous  assent 
of  mankind,  may  surely  be  regarded  as 
public  sentiment. 

Following  out  the  idea  of  benefitting  com- 
merce. my  colleague  and  the  gentleman 
from  the  8th,  contend,  that  it  is  the  duly  of 
the  commissioners  of  the  canal  fund,  to  go 
into  the  market  and  purchase  up  the  canal 
stocks  at  any  price  at  which  they  can  be  ob- 
tained. The  first  answer  to  this  is,  that  it  is 
impossible.  These  officers  have  not,  in  this 
particular,  been  negligent  of  their  duty. 
They  have  made  the  attempt,  and  with  no 
success.  They  have  not  been  able  to  pur- 
chase a single  dollar’s  worth  of  stock.  The 
moment  they  employ  an  agent  for  that  pur- 
pose, brokers  discover  him,  and  the  stocks 
immediately  rise.  It  is  in  vain  to  task  your 
officers  with  the  duty  of  purchasing  those 
stocks  until  a change  shall  occur,  in  the  pe- 
cuniary condition  of  the  world,  that  shall 
render  it  undesirable  to  hold  them.  But,  if 
those  stocks  were  attainable,  would  it  be 
judicious  to  purchase  them  at  their  present 
price  ? The  committee  have  shewn  us  in 
their  report  what  it  would  cost.  That  doc- 
ument assumes  that  the  canal  stocks  are 
worth  on  an  average,  a premium  of  1^5  per 
cent,  and  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  $1,. 
208,346  75  of  premium  necessary  to  effect 
the  redemption  of  the  canal  stocks.  Accor- 
ding to  this  doctrine,  we  must  give  awray 
upwards  of  $1 ,200,000  for  the  privilege  of 
paying  our  debts,  and  that  too  when  nearly 
one  half  of  the  amount  becomes  payable  in 
five  years,  when  payment  can  be  made  with- 
out arsacrifice.  And  indeed,  when  we  re- 
ceive 4 1-2  per  cent,  interest  on  our  canal 
fund,  and  pay  only  5 and  6 per  cent,  upon 
our  stocks,  to  save  the  difference  of  one  and 
one- half  per  cent,  interest,  we  must  give 
away  one-seventh  part  of  the  principal, 
amounting  to  more  than  $1,200,000,  a sum 
more  than  sufficient  to  support  our  govern- 
ment for  three  years — and  all  this  for  the 
benefit  of  commerce — that  the  tolls  may  be 
abolished  and  commodities  pass  free.  This 
would  be  a beautiful,  practical  illustration 


of  the  doctrine  of  free  trade.  We  must 
give  away  what  we  have  in  possession,  for 
the  purpose  of  trying  the  experiment  of 
•splendid  theories,  and  in  the  hope  of  obtain- 
ing a fanciful,  ideal  advantage.  Yes,  there 
is  one  benefit  more  to  be  attained  by  this 
operation:  The  precious  privilege  of  sub- 
jecting the  people  of  the  state  to  ‘‘eternal 
taxation.”  The  right  of  raising  revenue 
from  the  canals,  for  which  I contend,  does 
not  involve  the  question  of  the  rates  of  tolls 
it  would  be  proper  to  establish.  This  ques- 
tion has  been  discussed  by  the  gentlemen 
who  deny  the  right,  as  though  there  was  no 
alternative  between  the  present  rates  and  a 
total  abolition.  That  is  not  a full  and  cor- 
rect view  of  the  case.  No  one  insists  that 
the  present  rates  should  be  always  retained. 
Such  a doctrine  has  never  been  advocated 
on  this  floor.  I have  on  every  befitting  oc- 
casion declared  my  conviction,  that  the  tolls 
were  now  too  high  for  the  purposes  both  of 
commerce  and  revenue.  About  one  third 
of  the  present  rates  is  above  the  constitu- 
tional requirement.  That  excess,  in  my 
judgment,  might  be  taken  off  with  advan- 
tage to  the  commerce  of  the  country  and 
ihe  canal  revenue.  My  colleague  has  made 
statements  to  illustrate  the  effect  of  reduc- 
tion of  tolls  to  increase  transportation.  1 
agree  perfectly  in  the  fact  of  such  tendency, 
though  his  anticipations  of  the  extent  of  such 
increase  surpass  my  own.  it  is  not  necessa- 
ry to  give  you  abundant  revenue  with  redu- 
ced tolls,  that  the  increase  should  equal  his 
calculations.  Half  the  present  tolls  will  give 
you  a plentiful  revenue.  A quarter  of  the 
present  rates  will  yield  it  so  generously,  that 
you  may  fulfil  all  the  implied  obligations  of 
the  state,  extend  its  usefulness,  exalt  its  cha- 
racter, and  satisfy  all  the  high  expectations 
that  your  former  acts  have  excited.  Those 
rates  should  be  adjusted  with  reference  to 
the  interests  of  the  community,  and  should 
never  be  oppressive. 

My  colleague  urges  the  abolition  of  the 
canal  tolls  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the 
benefits  of  the  canals.  He  contends  that,  by 
this  process,  a section  on  each  side  of  the 
canals,  and  parallel  to  them  would  be  admit- 
ted to  a participation  in  the  privileges  of  the 
canals  which  are  now  debarred  by  the  ex- 
pense of  transportation,  and  he  exhibits  the 
strips  of  country  that  would  be  so  benefitted. 
The  statement  and  the  argument  are  undoubt- 
edly true,  but  he  seems  not  to  have  perceiv- 
ed that  to  make  this  extension  of  privileges, 
great  additional  advantages  must  be  conferr- 
ed upon  the  sections  of  the  country  now  in 
the  full  enjoyment  of  the  benefits  of  the  canals, 
and  which  do  not  need  any  extension,  while 
no  benefits  whatever  would  be  conferred  upon 


other  portions  of  the  state  equally  meritorious 
&l  now  suffering  from  the  deprivation  of  com- 
mercial facilities.  His  plan  would  surfeit  with 
blessings  those  who  do  not  need  them,  and  ex- 
tend them  not  at  all  to  those  who  want  and  de- 
serve them  most.  Yet,  for  this  partial  and  im- 
perfect extension  of  canal  accommodations, 
the  canal  tolls  are  to  be  sacrificed . 

My  plan  is  to  extend  those  benefits  latter- 
ally  by  a reduction  of  tolls,  and  to  raise  rev- 
enue by  the  imposition  of  moderate  and 
reasonable  tolls,  and  extend  similar  advanta- 
ges to  other  and  more  remote  sections  of  the 
state  by  the  construction  of  tributary  canals. 
In  this  way  you  will  swell  the  amount  ofyour 
canal  revenues,  increase  your  commerce,  and 
render  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  state. 

I will  now  proceed  to  shew  you  the  propri- 
ety of  the  plan  I have  offered  as  a substitute 
for  a tax,  and  its  sufficiency  for  all  the  pub- 
lic exigencies.  The  bill  on  your  table  pro- 
poses a tax  for  two  years.  My  plan  intends 
to  provide  for  the  support  of  the  government 
for  two  years,  and  then  indicates  a different 
mode  of  support  for  the  future,  so  as  to  ren- 
der taxation  forever  unnecessary.  This  sub- 
stitute provides  for  the  transfer  of  the  bonds 
and  mortgages,  and  other  good  securities 
belonginglo  the  general  fund,  to  the  litera- 
ture and  common  school  funds,  in  exchange 
for  money.  And  to  enable  those  funds  to 
purchase  them  it  further  provides  for  the 
purchase  and  redemption,  with  money  be- 
longing to  the  canal  lund,  of  the  canal  stocks 
now  held  by  those  funds.  Those  stocks 
amount  to  $420,000,  and  bear  an  interest  of 
five  per  cent.  The  effect  of  the  whole  ope- 
ration, will  be  to  benefit  the  literature  and 
common  school  funds,  by  giving  them  good 
securities  bearing  an  interest  of  six  per  cent, 
in  exchange  for  five  percent,  stocks,  thereby 
increasing  their  income.  It  will  also  benefit 
the  canal  fund  by  investing  a portion  of  the 
money  belonging  to  it,  which  lately  produced 
interest  at  only  3 1-2  and  now  4 1-2  per 
cent,  in  stocks  at  5 per  cent.  The  further 
advantage  of  this  plan,  is,  that  it  will  supply 
the  general  fund  with  money  for  the  purposes 
of  government. 

I will  now  shew  that  the  general  fund  is 
sufficient  for  all  your  wants  for  two  years, 
the  proposed  duration  of  the  tax.  First  let 
us  ascertain  what  you  do  want.  The  ordi- 
nary, estimated  expenses  of  the  government 
are  a little  short  of  $270,000  a year,  to  which 
must  now  be  added  the  interest  on  the  debt 
to  Mr.  Astor — this  will  be  about  $28,000. 
Allow  then  $77,000  annually  for  extraordina- 
ry expenditures  (a  sum  ej'ceeding  recent 
precedent)  and  the  whole  amount  of  your 
expenses  will  be  $375,000  a year. 


The  next  point  is  to  shew  you  that  your 
general  fund  will  be  sufficient. 

That  fund,  according  to  the  comptroller 
and  the  committee,  consists  of  good  securi- 
ties & stocks  amounting  to  $684,071 , and  pro- 
ducing in  interest  $41,044,28.  But  if  we  use 
portions  of  the  capital,  according  to  the  pro- 
ositions  of  the  substitute,  the  interest  will 
e diminished.  I have  theretore  estimated 
it  at  only  $24,000.  There  are  other  sources 
of  revenue,  which  1 have  taken  according  to 
the  comptroller’s  estimate- 

The  means  of  the  government  will  there- 


fore stand  as  follows : 

General  fund,  $684,071 

Interest,  24,000 

Fees  of  officers,  1,000 

Pedlar’s  licences,  1,400 

Interest  on  arrears  of  county  taxes,  4,000 

Miscellaneous  receipts,  2,000 

First  payments  on  sales  of  land,  20,000 


$736,471 

One  year’s  expenditure,  375,000 

$361,471 

Interest,  12,000 

Other  receipts  as  before,  28,400 


$401,871 

Second  year’s  expenditure,  375,000 


26,871 

This  statement  shews  that  the  general 
fund  is  sufficient  to  carry  you  through  the 
two  years  for  which  the  tax  is  proposed,  with 
a prospect  of  a balance  at  the  end  of  near 
27,000  dollars — allow  that  for  casualties. 
The  general  fund  will  also  be  increased  by 
the  sales  of  land,  the  securities  taken  upon 
such  sales  may  be  transferred  to  the  litera- 
ture and  common  school  funds  according  to 
the  process  provided  in  the  substitute,  if  the 
necessities  of  the  government  require. 

It  is  evident  therefore  thatyou  have  abun- 
dant means  for  all  the  purposes  of  the  gov- 
ernment for  which  you  propose  to  tax.  A 
resort  to  taxation  is  then  therefore  unneces- 
sary. If  you  must  have  recourse  to  that 
method  of  raising  money  finally,  why  not 
postpone  it  until  your  present  means  are  ex- 
hausted ? But  if  you  impose  the  tax  now, 
what  are  you  to  do  at  the  expiration  of  the 
period  ? You  will  then  be  in  no  better  con- 
dition to  dispense  with  taxation.  If  the  rea- 
soning in  favor  of  taxation  now  be  sound,  it 
will  be  equally  powerful  and  sufficient  then. 
The  committee  have  proposed  no  plan  for 
the  future  supply  of  the  treasury.  If  you  tax 
now,  your  general  fund  will  not  be  materially 
increased  within  two  years,  and  you  propose 
410  substitute  for  taxation  ; you  may  therefore 


as  well  make  It  perpetual.  I propose  to  dis- 
pense with  taxation  forever,  and  have  there- 
fore submitted  a proposition  for  the  future 
support  of  the  government.  That  is,  to  trans- 
fer the  auction  and  salt  duties  from  the  canal 
fund  to  the  general  fund.  That  requires  an 
amendment  of  the  constitution  and  1 have 
accordingly  introduced  a resolution  having 
that  foi  its  object.  If  that  resolution  pass 
this  and  the  next  legislature  and  meet  the 
approbation  of  the  people,  it  will  take  effect 
at  the  expiration  of  two  years,  and  will  sup- 
ply your  treasuiy  immediately  upon  the  ex- 
haustion of  the  general  fund.  I desire  to 
submit  that  question  to  the  people.  If  they 
approve  of  the  resolution, and  the  consequent 
transfer  of  those  revenues,  it  will  be  decisive 
evidence  that  they  disapprove  of  taxation. 
If  they  reject  the  resolution,  it  may  then  be 
assumed  that  public  sentiment  is  in  favor  of 
raising  by  taxation  the  supplies  necessary 
for  the  government.  You  may  then  make 
taxation  perpetual.  But  I desire  that  you 
should  ask  the  people,  and  I will  be  as  ready 
as  you,  to  abide  their  answer. 

The  auction  and  salt  duties  will  be  suffi- 
cient for  all  your  wants.  They  produced 
last  year  over  $405,000  of  clear  revenue. 
That  sum  exceeds  your  annual  expenditure. 
If  the  transfer  be  made  3Tou  will  have  an 
abundant  provision  tor  the  future,  as  well 
as  the  present  supply  of  your  treasun^ — 
the  canal  fund  does  not  need  theseresources. 
Its  revenues  will  be  excessive  without  them. 
You  took  them  from  the  general  fund  when 
they  yielded  only  about  $124,000,  and  you 
can  now  return  them  to  it  more  than  trebled 
in  productiveness.  They  have  rendered  es- 
sential service  to  the  canals,  and  the  canals 
have  chiefly  caused  this  increase  in  their 
value. 

But  gentlemen  say  this  is  borrowing,  and 
they  represent  me  as  having  said,  on  a for- 
mer occasion,  that  borrowing  was  the  “sim- 
ple process  of  simple  men.”  With  one  ad- 
dition, I adopt  the  sentiment — “Borrowing, 
without  necessit}',  is  the  simple  process  of 
simple  men.”  The  committee  in  their  re- 
port repiesent  our  financial  condition  to  be 
such  that  there  is  no  alternative  afforded  us 
but  borrowing  or  taxation.  I resist  their 
reasoning — deny  the  accuracy  of  their  state- 
ments, and  dissent  from  their  conclusions. 

I insist  that  such  is  not  our  condition,  and 
maintain  that  both  alike  are  unnecessary. 
It  is  clear  that  my  plan  contemplates  no  bor- 
rowing. When  a man  borrows  he  contracts 
a debt,  either  upon  a pledge  of  his  credit  or 
his  property.  When  he  sells  his  properly 
and  receives  payment,  he  does  not  borrow' 
the  money.  No  man  borrows  when  he  gives 
| an  equivalent  for  the  money  he  receives , 


16 


and  the  transaction  is  absolute,  unaccompa- 
nied with  any  stipulation  for  a return.  This 
illustrates  the  difference  between  borrowing 
and  the  plan  1 have  proposed.  The  process 
requires  exchanges  between  your  several 
funds,  but  neither  becomes  the  debtor  of  the 
other.  The  transaction  is  completed  and 
each  fund  is  a gainer  by  the  operation — 
where  then  is  the  borrowing? 

But  it  is  asserted  that  we  owe  Mr.  Astor! 
nearly  the  amount  of  the  general  fund,  and 
therefore  it  is  inferred  that  we  have  no  such 
fund.  Do  gentlemen  who  make  this  asser- 
tion propose  to  apply  the  general  fund  to  the 
payment  of  Mr.  Astor’s  claim  ? Not  so. 
Far  different  is  the  disposition  made  of  that 
debt.  The  chairman  who  introduced  the 
bill  for  taxation  introduced  also  a bill  for  the 
settlement  of  that  claim  by  the  issue  of  stock. 
In  that  way  that  claim  is  for  the  present  ad- 
justed. What  pertinency  then  is  there  in 
speaking  of  that  debt  in  reference  to  the 
general  fund  ? No  part  of  that  fund  has  been 
applied  to  its  payment,  nor  is  there  any  in- ! 
tention  to  make  such  application.  If  he  ; 
would  take  it,  good  policy  would  not  permit 
the  use  of  it,  for  his  payment.  Alore  espe-| 
daily,  if,  in  consequence  thereof,  a resort, 
must  be  had  to  taxation.  He  is  willing  to; 
take  stock  redeemable,  on  time,  at  four  perj 
cent.  Payment  of  his  demand  with  the' 
general  fund,  and  a resort  to  taxation,  as  a ! 
financial  operation,  would  be  raising  money  I 
at  per  cent,  to  pay  a debt  bearing  interest  at! 
per  cent. 

But  you  may  inquire.  How  shall  the  debt 
to  Mr.  Astor  be  paid  ? I answer,  out  of  the  j 
funds  which  must  accumulate  from  existing 
sources  of  revenue.  You  are  destined  to  | 
have  that  accumulation.  Causes  now  exist- 
ing will  produce  it.  You  have  nothing  to 
do  but  to  permit  your  revenues  to  flow  into 
your  treasury  from  channels  already  open 
and  prolific,  and  you  will  have  an  amount 
of  fund  dangerous  from  its  magnitude,  andj 
for  which  you  have  no  earthly  appropriation. 
By  the  constitution  the  canal  toils  can  nei-| 
ther  be  reduced  below  the  constitutional  es-j 
tablishment,  nor  diverted  from  the  purpose j 
to  which  they  are  pledged,  “before  the  full ! 
and  complete  payment  of  the  canal  debt.”  | 
That  event  cannot  happen  until  July,  1840. ! 
Not  because  you  will  not  have  ample  means,  j 
but  because  you  cannot  compel  payment  at' 
an  earlier  day.  The  canal  fund  is  now  $2,- 
051,000,  which  has  been  chiefly  accumuiat-i 
ed  in  four  years,  and  the  canal  revenues,  | 
which  have  produced  it,  for  the  two  last  | 
years  have  increased  at  the  rate  of  about  | 


$250,000  annually.  If  no  part  of  those  re, 
enues  should  be  diverted,  and  should  co: 
tinue  to  increase  at  the  same  rate,  you  v 
have  on  the  first  of  January,  1847,  after  p- 
ment  of  all  the  debt  for  which  those  reven- 
are  pledged,  a fund  of  more  than  thii 
millions  of  dollars.  An  amount  larger  th: 

1 the  whole  bank  capital  of  the  state.  i 
But  my  plan  contemplates  a transfer 
the  auction  and  salt  revenues  from  the  car 
fund  to  the  general  fund,  by  which  a porti 
of  this  dangerous  accumulation  will  be  pi 
vented.  But  still  you  will  have  a great  fuf 
for  which  you  have  now  no  destined  u 
Let  us  ascertain  its  probable  amount,  if  t[ 
transfer  takes  place.  There  will  be  t 
years  of  full  revenue  before  it  can  be  effie< 
ed.  Calculating  at  the  same  rate  of  incre. 
as  has  been  experienced  for  the  two  1 
years,  the  canal  fund  will  be,  on  the  firsti 
January,  1834,  $5,300,000.  But  take  it  a? 
millions,  and  reckon  interest  at  4 per  c- 
only,  although  you  now  receive  four  an 
half.  Estimate,  also,  that  there  will  be 
increase  of  tolls,  contrary  to  all  past  ex 
rience  and  future  probability,  and  calcul 
the  annual  surplus  of  the  canal  tolls  over 
expenditure  at  only  $500,000,  a sum  1 
than  the  last  year’s  surplus  from  tolls  alo 
and  you  will  still  have  an  immense  fu 
Calculating  upon  these  data,  so  much  m 
unfavorable  than  past  results  would  just 
and  you  will  have  on  the  first  of  Janu 
.1847,  after  payment  of  all  the  canal  d 
for  which  those  revenues  are  pledged,  a ft 
of  more  than  $11,500,000  then  entirely 
i ncumbered,  and  applicable  to  any  purp 
of  public  use.  I would  pay  the  debt  to 
Astor  as  I would  pay  all  the  other  d 
which  you  may  then  have,  out  of  that  fu 
You  will  still  have  left  a largersum  than 
largest  amount  of  your  general  fund.  ^ 
are  destined,  and,  if  you  will  so  consider 
you  are  doomed  to  have  this  great  accu 
lation.  When  such  is  the  clear  prospt 
which  nothing  but  unforseen  and  unpr 
dented  calamities  can  prevent,  how  ca 
be  pretended  that  there  is  any  necessity 
a resort  either  to  taxation  or  loans  lor 
supply  of  the  treasury.  To  avoid  such 
alternative  requires  nothing  but  a prud 
and  judicious  management  of  your  exis' 
finances.  You  have  enough  for  the  pres 
and  more  than  enough  in  certain  prospe 
for  all  your  imaginable  wants.  And  it 
finances  of  this  state  shall  be  managed  y 
proper  judgment  and  discretion,  the  peo 
may  be  forever  free  from  direct  taxation 
the  support  of  their  government. 

Note.  , The  bill  imposing  a tax  was  rejected,  and  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr.  Mayn 
adopted,  18  to  5,  and  passed  the  assembly  nearly  unanimously". 


